Questions from your friendly neighborhood Protestant

[BibleReader]

**BibleReader (a Catholic): **I’ll get to the St. Michael business later. I’m doing your questions in order.

**Friendly Neighborhood Protestant: **Transubstantiation in the Eucharist. Though I absolutely do believe in miracles, it is difficult to accept that wine and bread literally become the blood and body of Christ. While I understand the ceremony as a way to remember Christ’s sacrifice, I fail to see what ingesting his physical body (which, so far as I understand it, was not divine in and of itself) does for the human soul.

**BibleReader (a Catholic): **First, can we verify the Real Presence Biblically? Yes. Again and again and again and again and again.

In Luke, when Christ is born, we see Christ wrapped-up in swaddling clothes so that He looks like a cadaver, and He’s lying in a manger, which was a feeding trough for yoked animals.

In effect, we see a picture of dead Christ’s actual body on a serving dish!

And WHERE do we see this happen? In Bethlehem, which is Hebrew meaning “House of Bread”! – a bakery!

So, what do we see in the bakery? Bread on a serving dish? Nope, we see the actual dead body of Christ being served in the House of Bread!

Next, the Bible frequently says that “A = B” – that two things are the same – by a process referred to as Identification by Juxtaposition.

So, when Christ rides the colt of an a|s|s into Jerusalem at the time of His Messianic Entry, He is portrayed as sitting on the a|s|s because we are being told that “A = B” – “Christ is the same thing as the Exodus 13:13 unredeemed first-born male a|s|s which must be killed because it is unredeemed.” Identification by Juxtaposition, get it?

Okay, in Genesis 27, in the story of Jacob’s Deception, Jacob has sacrificed blemishless lamb skin on his hands, and we see him offering sacrificed blemishless lamb skin meat to father, for a blessing.

That is a picture of Christ offering HIS OWN sacrificed meat to His Father in Heaven for a blessing for US!

Now, see what else Mr. Sacrificed Blemishless Lamb Skin Hands is serving to his father: Bread (Verse 17) and wine (Verse 25). Identification by Juxtaposition: A = B. Bread and wine = the sacrificed meat of Mr. Sacrificed Blemishless Lamb Skin Hands, Christ!

Here’s another completely amazing Identification by Juxtaposition: In Judges 19, a man from the Levite of Epraim shoves his concubine taken from Bethlehem on the fifth day out the door into the hands of a mob of sex-crazed bi-sexuals, to save the people in the house. The mob rapes her to death, and she dies with her hands on the threshhold of the door. Then the Levite takes her actual body, divides it into pieces, and delivers the pieces to all of Israel.

“Levite” is from the priestly tribe; he is a “priest” picture.

“Concubine” = Woman Type = “mankind in need of salvation.” Christ came in the form of “mankind in need of salvation,” didn’t He?

“Bethlehem” was where the concubine came from. This is true of Christ, too, isn’t it?

“Firth day” = Five Type = Christ. “Five” always somehow refers to Christ in the Bible.

“House” = a Temple Type analog = “Church.”

“Hands” = Arm/Hand Type = “Christ.”

“Door” = Door Type = “Christ.” He says, “I am the door,” in John’s gospel, doesn’t He?

So, Christ came in the form of “mankind in need of salvation.” The concubine’s femininity can be viewed as a Christ reference.

Like Christ, the concubine came from Bethlehem.

She left there on the “fifth” day – Christ Day, so to speak.

She died with her “hands” on the “threshhold,” a *double *affirmation that she is a Christ picture.

The priest picture, the Levite, offers her life to save those in the “house,” the Church picture.

The mob kills the Christ picture.

And what does the priest do?

HE OFFERS HER ACTUAL BODY TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE!

Now, *note what the people in the house were consuming when the concubine was offered-up to save them: Bread and wine! *Judges 19:19, 21-22.

Identification by Juxtaposition: “A = B”; “bread and wine = the body of the offered-up concubine divided-up and delivered to all of the people.”

There are many of these in the Bible.

I think that what is happeniing, when the Real Presence of Transubstantiation is consumed, is that “Christ stuff” is “becoming” us.

 

[Knight4Christ]

The Iambic Pen - St. Michael is a Saint because he is holy, he is a angel after all… saint is holy in latin! As to if only certain righteous people who had died were considered Saints. Well are all saints with a little s, if we are holy and we become holy with Christ. But Big Saints become Saints because they preform miracles, St. Michael is a ArchAngel who fights Satan and his angels. Thats right out of The Bible, it is why we ask him to defend us in battle

"Et factum est proelium in caelo, Michael et angeli eius, ut proeliarentur cum dracone. Et draco pugnavit et angeli eius,
et non valuit, neque locus inventus est eorum amplius in caelo.

Et proiectus est draco ille magnus, serpens antiquus, qui vocatur Diabolus et Satanas, qui seducit universum orbem; proiectus est in terram, et angeli eius cum illo proiecti sunt."

Or if you dont know latin open your Bible to The Apocalypse chapter 12 verse 7

Does this help?

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

"Et factum est proelium in caelo, Michael et angeli eius, ut proeliarentur cum dracone. Et draco pugnavit et angeli eius, et non valuit, neque locus inventus est eorum amplius in caelo.

Et proiectus est draco ille magnus, serpens antiquus, qui vocatur Diabolus et Satanas, qui seducit universum orbem; proiectus est in terram, et angeli eius cum illo proiecti sunt."

Or if you dont know latin open your Bible to The Apocalypse chapter 12 verse 7

Does this help?

Let’s see: The fact is purely covered. Michael is an angel for God with dragons. The fighting dragon is an angel, but is not valued. Never at the center of the invention is love great and covered.

And protect us from the dragon of greatness. The old serpent, who is provocative. The devil is Satan. Who seduces the entire universe. Protect us on earth, the angel who is with all protection.

Well then, since it’s quite obvious that I don’t know Latin, I’ll check the passage in English. Did I come close?

Revelation 12:7 - And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.

Well, it looks like I was a bit off. Time for Latin class, I guess! Thanks for the information! God Bless!

 

[reggie]

welcome, iambic pen and may God bless you and lead you home!

Regarding Mary and the Immaculate Conception, which would seem to be impossible when considering the passage that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God…We must always keep in mind that Mary was saved by the grace of Jesus. She was not sinless by her own merit and received this special grace because of the role she was to play in salvation. God always gives us what we need to fulfill the mission He gives us. He did so with every prophet. Remember Moses saying, why would anyone listen to me, a simple sheperd and what will I say to Pharoah? God said He would give him the means and the words. So too He did this with Mary. Mary was a creature just as we all are, Mary was subject to Original Sin, just as we all are, Mary needed the saving grace of Jesus, just as we all do.

Papal infalliblity is not so hard when you remember that Jesus told the Apostles, when they bring you before the pharisees and question you, do not worry what you are to say, the Holy Spirit will give you the words. Most Catholic doctrine was declared as a response to incorrect theology. The church has always been open to theology, weighing it against Scripture and Tradition and then pronouncing its truthfulness or its heresy. It is important to remember that many of the early fathers expounded theology that was not accepted as truth by the church. We do not put our trust in the individual pope per se, we put our trust in Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The pope does not invent doctrine nor make pronouncements upon the faithful that have not been prayerfully discerned. Even the worst of the popes(who are human and have the same human frailties we all have) protected the deposit of faith handed down to them and did not make radical changes to doctrine. Some may have used the office for gain for themselves and their families, but they were respectful of doctrine even when they couldn’t or wouldn’t adhere to it.

I pray your search ends with the Catholic Church. When I was returning after years away, I always found that God led me to the books, articles and people I needed to find answers. May He do the same for you.

reggie

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

We must always keep in mind that Mary was saved by the grace of Jesus. She was not sinless by her own merit and received this special grace because of the role she was to play in salvation.

Now that makes sense. I suppose one could look at it this way. As God equips all people for the tasks he has appointed for them, each are placed in a different state at birth. Mary, as you say, was saved by the grace of Christ before her own birth, in order that she might be a “suitable vessel” to carry the Christ (I’m not sure if that’s an appropriate way to speak of her, and I apologize if I have misspoken). By the same measure, some are placed in Christian families, and some are not. While we cannot pretend to know God’s individual plan for all of us, we can know that He desires for all of us to be with Him in Heaven.

Most Catholic doctrine was declared as a response to incorrect theology. The church has always been open to theology, weighing it against Scripture and Tradition and then pronouncing its truthfulness or its heresy.

And there certainly have been heresies. Earlier today I read an article on the main site about various heresies throughout history. Obviously, these heresies needed to be dealt with before they could spread. I’m reminded of the story of Ananias and Saphira, who both died when they lied to the apostles about the amount of money they had earned from a sale of land. While this is not exactly the same thing, perhaps, it showed that sinful practices cannot be allowed to continue in the Church. When false teachings are being proclaimed, the Church should very clearly state what is true, so people are not led astray. When one of the stated heresies was Protestantism, well, I guess that puts me in a bit of an awkward position…

I pray your search ends with the Catholic Church. When I was returning after years away, I always found that God led me to the books, articles and people I needed to find answers. May He do the same for you.

I thank you for your prayers! Rest assured they do work!

While browsing articles on this site, I came upon the following information:

The Christian fully enters the Church by profession of faith and formal reception. For the profession of faith, the candidate says, “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”

Obviously, this is a perfectly acceptable confession to make. That being said, it is certainly not one I could make unless I absolutely meant what I was saying. I guess that’s why I ask so many questions…

God Bless!

 

[antiaphrodite]

we’re praying for your journey…wanderer

 

[BibleReader]

**Friendly Neighborhood Protestant: **Papal Infallibility. Seeing as how popes are men also, it seems that they would be very capable of making a wrong judgment on an issue. I guess that is why Protestants are drawn to sola scriptura, as we are reluctant to trust the word of any human (though, admittedly, the Bible was written by them…) on spiritual matters.

**BibleReader (a Catholic): **Presumably, you are not picking on just “papal” infallibility, but all claims of infallibility (such as Martin Luther infallibility, John Knox infallibility, bishop infallibility, cardinal infallibility, minister infallibility, individual Protestant Bible reader infallibility, etc.), since your arguments apply just as strongly to Joe Schmoe, sitting in his lawn chair in his back yard, reading the Bible – otherwise, he is just another “pope” without the title, right?

Now, the problem with being logical like that is that the logical conclusion of the premise is that the infallible Bible becomes isolated and unreachable in a sea of Original-Sin-generated proneness to error.

In other words, if infallibile interpretation of Scripture is not “findable” on Earth, then no reliable interp of inspired sacred Scripture is philosophically possible.

I had a debate with one of the writers at Hank Hannegraff’s Christian Research Institute about this. He insisted that the sola scriptura suystem overcomes the effect of concupisence on Bible reading. I answered, “Why not for the pope, too, then? Why do you prefer your interpretation of Scripture over the popes? Let’s say HE genuinely believes that HE uses sola scriptura, and arrives at the same conclusion on Catholic theology he did the previous week relying on inspiration. And then YOU genuinely believe that YOU use ***sola scriptura, ***and arrive at a perfectly contradictory conclusion. Who wins?”

He answered that HE, the CRI man, wins.

I asked, “How do you know?”

He answered, “It will be obvious. Careful reading of the Bible, based on certain undeniable presumptions, leads ineluctably to a certain interpretation.”

I asked, “WHAT presumptions? Doesn’t Original-Sin-generated concupisence even afflict our understanding of life’s basic presumptions, and cause us to make errors about THESE, TOO?”

“No,” he answered. “Let me give you an example of an undeniable basic presumption: ‘FIRE IS HOT.’”

I laughed and answered, “You are making an error already! Fire ISN’T hot! The heat we feel from fire is a sensory illusion! That heat isn’t IN the fire AT ALL! It is in your brain! It is the feeling of pain your brain generates to try to force you to ‘get away’ from the fire, because the wild Brownian Motion of the molecules in the fire are beginning to rip apart and destroy your skin! FIRE ISN’T INHERENTLY ‘HOT’! You have made an error ALREADY!”

At that point, the CRI man stopped talking to me.

In any event, Original-Sin-generated human concupisence afflicts every Bible-pounding Protestant’s interpretation of Scripture, too, at every single step of the sola scriptura process!

If a reliably infallible interepretation of the Bible isn’t possible, then the infallible Bible must forever remain an unreachable island, isolated in a sea of Original Sin.

We can see word pictures of Magisterial infallibility, including papal infallibility, in the Bible.

For example, the Church teachers that the grace protecting Magisterial infallibility overcoming human weakness, stupidity and error is not only “communicative” – it protects the communicator’s articulation – but also “receptive” – it protects the apprehension on the teaching by the one being taught.

In the story of Malchus, Peter grips his sword, and slices-off the right ear of Malchus. John 18:10-11. Jesus miraculously re-attaches the ear. Luke 22:51.

In the Bible, the Sword Type = “the word of God.” Note that, appropriately, the word of God is being applied to an ear. The ear responds badly – it falls off! Christ then fixes the hearing of the word of God – a picture of the Receptive Grace of Infallibility!

Now, note who was bearing the sword:

Peter, the first Pope.

 

[reggie]

Iambic pen, I think you do understand about Mary a little better now, but I have an objection to her being referred to as a vessel.
Mary was not just an incubator for the body of Jesus, she was His mother in every sense of the word. It is from Mary that Jesus received all of His humanity. So, yes, God gave Mary the grace needed for her to carry the Incarnation within her body, but it wasn’t only her body He used. She was pure of heart, gentle in spirit and obedient and devoted to God. She cared for Jesus as
any mother would. Her participation in Jesus’s salvific mission did not end at His birth, rather Mary was present from beginning to end; a devoted mother, the first disciple, unshakeable in faith even as her beloved Son lay down His life. She is the model for all Christians and a precious gift from Jesus on the cross showing His love for us to the end. Love and devotion to Mary should never be a stumbling block to Catholicism, she is one of our treasures.

 

[Cade_One]

Newvert:

Hi Iambic Pen, welcome to the forum!

You ask some honest questions that have clearly given more than a few people difficulty. While I’m sure you’ll get better answers here, as a former, poorly-formed Cradle Catholic-turned-non-denom-revert, I thought I’d put in my two cents.

*Hello Newvert,

I too am a Catholic who left the Church about six years ago for a Non-Denominational Church. It wasn’t because I was mad at the Catholic Church, but rather because I was young and didn’t understand my Faith. The Non-Denominational Played Rock-n-Roll, Had Donuts durign the service, big screens, and a whole bunch of other worldly enticements. I met many wonderful, very friendly, but misguided people (as I was too at the time). When I would envite my friends to church I would find myself saying, “You should come. It’s not like normal churches. They play rock music, you can eat donuts… and so on…” Wow! I was missing the entire point. Jesus. By the grace of God, I finally realized that this is not what God intended. While attending the ND Church I could feel the Holy Spirit moving through the place (actually they had giant air ducts to circulate the air which gives the illusioun of the Holy Spirit flowing through the place). These churches totally base their faith on “feelings”. I feel welcomed… I feel the Holy Spirit… I feel the music. It just started to sound all too cecular! When I returned to the Catholic Church, I truly felt welcomed… (by Christ) I truly felt the Presence of Jesus… I truly felt the community of not just those sitting around me, but also by the “Communion of Saints”. These were not false “feelings” created by the thousands of dollars which by huge sound systems, projector screens, and donuts. But feelings of Love from our Heavenly Father.

…When I saw Jesus on the Cross ( the ND Church didn’t even have a cross without Jesus ont it) I began to weep. I was reminded of Christ’s sacrafice (No greater Love is this). The Eucerist! Beats Donuts anyday. Praise be to God. I cried the entire Mass. Tears of Joy! Looking back I don’t know why ever left. Each and every day I grow in my Faith and love for all God’s children of all denominations and non-denominations. My fionce came into the Church this past Easter which was beutiful.

My mom however has left the Church and is now attending a Non-Denominational Church, that had been started by the ND Church that I used to attend, for the sake of her marriage. It saddens me to see all that she has given up. I pray for her daily. Her pastor used to be Catholic and he has her wrapped around his finger. Please pray for her. Thank you all and God Bless.

Sorry to stray away from the original questions.

• Joshua

lambic Pen: My fionce struggled with many of the same questions that you have. It is totally understandible. It takes some time, prayer, and Trust. I will keep you in my prayers. May God continue to bless you and your loved ones. You sound like such a loving and kind person. Take care.*

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

we’re praying for your journey…wanderer

Thank you!

Presumably, you are not picking on just “papal” infallibility, but all claims of infallibility (such as Martin Luther infallibility, John Knox infallibility, bishop infallibility, cardinal infallibility, minister infallibility, individual Protestant Bible reader infallibility, etc.), since your arguments apply just as strongly to Joe Schmoe, sitting in his lawn chair in his back yard, reading the Bible – otherwise, he is just another “pope” without the title, right?

I see what you are saying. I think the issue is that, yes, I do find it difficult to believe that any one person, whether the Pope or the guy down the street, can be always right, all the time, about the Bible. I guess since there are so many differing interpretations, many of which are obviously wrong, it seems that the Pope, being human, could also make a wrong interpretation. Of course, the Catholic belief seems to be that the Holy Spirit keeps the Pope from making false statements of Doctrine, regardless of the Pope’s righteousness.

At any rate, I need to study this further, starting with the tracts and such on this very site. Obviously, God is not going to let “the infallible Bible [become] isolated and unreachable in a sea of Original-Sin-generated proneness to error.” Please pray for me about this. Thanks!

The Non-Denominational Played Rock-n-Roll, Had Donuts durign the service, big screens, and a whole bunch of other worldly enticements.

I think I’ve been to that church!

These churches totally base their faith on “feelings”. I feel welcomed… I feel the Holy Spirit… I feel the music.

I quite agree, though certainly not all of these Non-Denomination churches are like this. Many are, though, and I have certainly seen this hold true. In my old church back home, I remember how the worship leader would play high energy songs for nearly an hour sometimes. Many in the church were obviously affected on some level, obviously *feeling * very pumped up and excited. Some did not care for this appeal to feelings and complained about it. Granted, some of them just didn’t like modern music, but many of the complaints were legitimate. I certainly agreed with many of them. I remember, though, how in the midst of one particularly energetic session, the worship leader said something to the effect of, “I know some of you don’t care for this, but you better get used to it, because it’s all you’ll be doing in Heaven!” Well, that made me mad, not only because his view of Heaven seemed quite distorted, but because of the way he was suggesting that those who didn’t like his worship style were somehow so far outside where God wanted them to be that they wouldn’t even like Heaven. My church wasn’t always like this, I must explain, but in the last few years it had sort of been “taken over” by those of a more Pentecostal, Charismatic bent. Personally, I’ve always rebelled against the “appeal to feelings” approach, and I prefer to approach Christ in a much more quiet, reverent mood. Please understand I’m not saying these Pentecostal types are wrong just because they’re energetic. I just don’t like it when feeling and excitement become a substitute for worship.

Sorry to stray away from the original questions.

Actually, your post was very helpful. I find that comments from former Protestants (particularly those of a more Evangelical bent) are very easy for me to understand.

My fionce struggled with many of the same questions that you have. It is totally understandible. It takes some time, prayer, and Trust. I will keep you in my prayers. May God continue to bless you and your loved ones. You sound like such a loving and kind person. Take care.

Thank you! You take care as well, and may God bless you and your loved ones!

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

The Pope isn’t always right. A statement is only infallible if he is speaking ex cathedra, from the Chair of St. Peter. It also is only on matters of faith and morals. I think there have only been like six infallible teachings.

When the Pope is speaking as a private scholar, he is no more infallible than you or me, but his opinion is probably one to heed.

I believe also, a Pope is infallible when he is meeting with all the bishops of the world, like at councils at such.The canonization of Saints is infallible too, I think, and they go through a huge process to make sure they’re in Heaven.

I’m not 100% about the last two things though, the first I’m confident on.

 

[RyanL]

The Iambic Pen:

… I do find it difficult to believe that any one person, whether the Pope or the guy down the street, can be always right, all the time, about the Bible. I guess since there are so many differing interpretations, many of which are obviously wrong, it seems that the Pope, being human, could also make a wrong interpretation…

Iambic Pen,

I don’t know if you’re aware of it, but the Catholic Church feels the same way as you do! We know for a fact that Popes can be wrong on their interpretation! For example, Gregory the Great interpreted Mary Magdalene as being a prostitute during a homily he gave - as a result, people subsequently called Mary Magdalene a prostitute for hundreds of years. The Church finally corrected the matter (I think in the 1960’s), but it took some time.

How can this be, you ask! Easy - Popes are human, too!

The only promise that the Pope has is that he won’t erroniously teach a matter of Faith & Morals to the Church in a Binding Manner. For example, Peter teaches us in Acts that it is not essential to our Faith to be circumcised or to follow the Levitical Law - and the rule still stands! Even though he screwed it up and had to be corrected by Paul, it was no less binding (even on him). Another example: the Pope ratified Nicea’s dogmatic definition of the Trinity in 325 AD, and the rule still stands.

Does that help to clarify the matter at all? If not, you can read the official declaration here.

God bless,
RyanL

 

[Curious]

I quite agree, though certainly not all of these Non-Denomination churches are like this. Many are, though, and I have certainly seen this hold true. In my old church back home, I remember how the worship leader would play high energy songs for nearly an hour sometimes. Many in the church were obviously affected on some level, obviously *feeling *very pumped up and excited. Some did not care for this appeal to feelings and complained about it. Granted, some of them just didn’t like modern music, but many of the complaints were legitimate. I certainly agreed with many of them. I remember, though, how in the midst of one particularly energetic session, the worship leader said something to the effect of, “I know some of you don’t care for this, but you better get used to it, because it’s all you’ll be doing in Heaven!” Well, that made me mad, not only because his view of Heaven seemed quite distorted, but because of the way he was suggesting that those who didn’t like his worship style were somehow so far outside where God wanted them to be that they wouldn’t even like Heaven. My church wasn’t always like this, I must explain, but in the last few years it had sort of been “taken over” by those of a more Pentecostal, Charismatic bent. Personally, I’ve always rebelled against the “appeal to feelings” approach, and I prefer to approach Christ in a much more quiet, reverent mood. Please understand I’m not saying these Pentecostal types are wrong just because they’re energetic. I just don’t like it when feeling and excitement become a substitute for worship

Lol…Iambic Pen…you must have visited my former church!! I’ve had very similar experiences in these non-denom churches. I get particularly irritated at the craze of preachers nowadays to say things like "LOOK TO YOU RIGHT AND THEN LOOK TO YOUR LEFT AND SAY TO YOUR NEIGHBOR “I SEE JESUS IN YOU!!” and everyone having a nice little social laugh about it and the whole service filled with such drivel. At one church I went to, if the people didn’t pray along with pastor loudly or fervently enough during the opening prayer, he’d rebuke them and tell them they weren’t “in the Spirit” and then start all over.

Just wanted to pop in with this brief hijack to greet you. I’ve been following some of your posts with interest, and I see some similarties in your experiences and my own. Welcome aboard keep up those great posts.

P.S. You may all now return to your regularly schedule thread.

 

[bassman]

Mary is the proto-type Christian: her immaculate conception foreshadows the freedom from sin of all Christians; her assumption foreshadows the resurrection of all the just.

Papal infallibility does not mean the pope is a perfect person, it means that the Church as the body of Christ cannot err, and the pope has the ability to speak in the name of the Church in certain cases.

bassman

 

[HitF12]

Hi Imabic! (Mr? Ms? Pentameter)

I have to say that I’ve been reading this thread with interest. You’ve asked a lot of questions I haven’t even thought of asking (and getting some great answers, I might add!)

I wanted to add my two cents (I’m in Canada, so that’s only about 1 1/2 cents US )

I was born mostly-Catholic, my mom being one and my dad being… let’s just say when I explained my situation to the priest when I got married, he put my father’s religion as “n/a”. At some point in my teens, I decided that God didn’t exist, and that he was a figment of my mother’s deluded imagination.

At 17, I “converted” to Pentacostal after a very emotional altar call. I met my exhusband (who was Uk Catholic and had “converted” a year prior) and we plunged headlong into the world of “evangelical” churches.

Did I mention that his brother was the leader of the local chapter of Campus Crusade for Christ?

Despite our conversion, my ex and I never found a community that we felt confortable. We were forever being told what we were doing wrong, without ever getting suggestions as to what was right. We attended ND services, where everyone would start speaking in tongues, shouting over one another in a cacaphony of nonesense (Didn’t Paul say somewhere that worship should not be allowed to get out of hand). We went to churches were the pastor preached it was a sin against God to be poor. We had our fingers slapped for not tithing our 10%, for enjoying the occassional nip of wine, and for attending Christmas mass with our Catholic families.

Eventually, we strayed from the church. We started living together without being married (his brother threw a fit). Our relationship deteriorated. We (I) thought getting married would fix it. It didn’t. Once he felt “trapped” in the marriage, he became verbally and emotionally abusive. He told me he wouldn’t spend money on my university studies because it was a waste of money. I wouldn’t dare buy anything other than name-brand food and expensive cuts of meat (even when we didn’t have the money) because I knew he would be angry if I didn’t. I wasn’t allowed to see my family or friends. I contemplated suicide. Eventually, he had an affair, and left me for the other woman (who, ironically enough, is Catholic).

I do have a point. Really, I do.

Since my separation and subsequent divorce, I wandered back to the Catholic Church. Not that we went growing up, except at Christmas and Easter. I did go to Catecism for a few years, not that I paid attention or that any of the lessons I learned were revisted at home.

But I walked into my local French-language parish. Now, I speak French as a second langauge, but it had honestly been so long that I would have been lost even in an English mass. However, in spite of that, I felt like I had come home. I found a good English-language parish, and begun to explore my faith. A good community of in the care of the Jesuits.

I requested that my marriage be annulled, and the tribunal agreed. Now, many protestants are critical of the annullment process, but I found it to be the single-most healing action I had ever done. I’m now only a few months away from being married again to a wonderful Catholic man, raised in a conservative Catholic family (oldest of 7 kids!), who lived only 2 street over from my ex.

Ok, now my point.

I am glad that you are exploring the Catholic Church, even if you never convert. When I came back to the Church, I very much had a feeling that I had something to teach it. Now, I realize that I have soooooo much to learn from it.

I am never asked to pay for my sins in the same way the evangelical churchs asked me to; the grace of God is free.

I am valued as a woman; I am not reduced to the role of a servant for my spouse, but I am a valued, equal partner, and will someday be a mother (I’ll trade that for being a priest any day of the week!).

I receive nourishment from God, both spiritually in his Word, but by his Eucharist (better than the crackers and little cups of grape juice that we had at the Pentacostal church).

My best friends are (in no particular order): semi-practicing United (who actually managed to get herself kicked out of the United church at one point), Jewish, non-baptized nothing-in-particular, and a self-proclaimed gnostic that was raised a Mennonite. We all learn from each other what our faith is about. That dialogue is precious.

This dialogue is precious. Keep it open. I am learning so much from you all.

Yeah, Ok, sorry its long, and now I’m not so sure it belongs on this thread.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

God Bless,

CJ

 

[RobNY]

Us Catholics have hard enough times with our own faith, I don’t think anyone will fault you for honest inquiry. And you do seem particularly honest.

One of the most important aspects of Catholicism is undoubtedly the Real Presence. You can check out this lengthy thing here which shows all different types of cross-references for and prefigurings of the Eucharist. (From a book by a man named Marty Barrack which focuses from a Jewish origins of the faith.) It’s fascinating! However, this block of text is the most relevant part:

The New Testament accounts describe the Holy Eucharist as Jesus gave it to us. The term “bread from heaven” becomes fully clear only when we reach the Revelation to John. The Gospels Christ said at Capernaum. Jn 6:51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My Flesh.”

Jewish life is rich in symbolism. The Seder table is filled with symbolic foods. Jesus said, Mt 26:23 “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with Me, will betray Me.” He referred to the urhatz, the first washing; slaves eat quickly without stopping to wash their hands, but now Jews wash their hands in a bowl of warm water as a symbol of their freedom. The moror, bitter herbs which remind Jews that the Egyptians made their ancestors’ lives bitter with hard labor, are dipped in charoset, a sweet mixture of chopped apples, nuts, and wine, to recall that even hard lives have their sweet moments. The matzo is the bread of haste that the Hebrews ate as they fled from Egypt. The karpas, green vegetables, represent the coming of Spring with its renewal of life, symbolizing the journey from slavery to the promised land; Jews dip them in salt water before eating to recall the tears shed along the way. If Jesus had said the Holy Eucharist was a symbol the Jews at Capernaum would instantly have accepted it. The Jews knew that He was speaking literally. Jn 6:52 “How can this man give us his Flesh to eat?” On other occasions when our Lord spoke of Himself as a Jn 10:9 “door” or a Jn 15:1 “vine,” nobody said, “How can this man be made of wood?” or “How can this man be a plant?” They recognized these as metaphors. But when Jesus insisted, Jn 6:53 “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.” The Jews who heard this said, Jn 6:60 “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” They remembered God’s command to Noah and all mankind, Gn 9:4 “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” God spoke more forcefully to His chosen people. Lv 17:10 “I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.” It was only after Christ’s redemptive sacrifice and the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment that the Apostles saw the full meaning of our Father’s next words. Lv 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.” In the Old Covenant our Father in heaven had commanded His children not to eat the blood of animals because we are not to participate in the life of animals. Animals, having no immortal souls, are lower than man in the order of created nature. However, in the New and Everlasting Covenant we consume the Blood of Christ to participate in Christ’s eternal life.

The John passage really seals it for me, at least. If there were any doubts about this part:

The three Gospel narratives of the Last Supper are absolutely consistent. Matthew: 26:26 “This is My Body.” 26:27 “This is My Blood…” Mark: 14:22 “This is My Body.” 14:24 “This is My Blood…” Luke: 22:19 “This is My Body.” 22:20 “This … is the New Covenant in My Blood.” Jesus’ next words instituted the Catholic priesthood: Lk 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of Me.”

 

[RobNY]

Anyway, you said you were about to investigate the deuterocanonicals. It tends to go back and forth much about whether the Fathers of the Church considered the Deuterocanonicals to be Scripture. One thing that people will do, for instance, is to claim that certain Fathers of the Church didn’t see them that way. (A select minority, they will show.) I’ve seen this brilliant argument over here which shows that the deuterocanonicals were considered Scripture by these men. That’s a more general one, and he treats the issue more broadly there. He specifically addresses the Church Fathers here. I found these on my own, so, I suppose that they’re good. I’d appreciate if others here would tell me what they think. Catholic Answers has a much less in depth look with quotes here.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Curious:

Just wanted to pop in with this brief hijack to greet you. I’ve been following some of your posts with interest, and I see some similarties in your experiences and my own. Welcome aboard keep up those great posts.

Thank you! As far as great posts go, I’m beginning to run out of questions! The people on this forum have done an excellent job of explaining everything.

HitF12:

Hi Imabic! (Mr? Ms? Pentameter)

Mr.

At 17, I “converted” to Pentacostal after a very emotional altar call.

This brings up the point I addressed earlier. I have seen my share of emotional commitments that didn’t last. I’m not saying God can’t use our emotions to bring us to Him, but I do think our emotions can deceive us. What we think is the moving of the Spirit may actually be the thumping of the bass drum.

Did I mention that his brother was the leader of the local chapter of Campus Crusade for Christ?

I should mention that I was a part of Campus Crusade for Christ during college. I knew many who were very committed to following Christ and serving Him. Being a part of that group certainly helped me stay Christian in college. Being a group with no denominational affiliation, there were certainly differing opinions held by the members about various issues, but Christ was preached. I just thought I’d toss that in.

I am glad that you are exploring the Catholic Church, even if you never convert.

Thank you! It has been very educational.

All of this has been very helpful. I wish I was in a place where I could just head over to the nearest Catholic church this Sunday and see the Mass and maybe talk to the priest. Unfortunately, here in this unidentified, yet often on the news, country in Southwest Asia, it is not so simple. They do have a Mass, though, and there is a Catholic chaplain, so I’m going to try and attend as soon as I can. Since I don’t work a normal schedule, however, there’s no guarantee I’ll be able to make it this week. But, if I don’t, hopefully I’ll make the next one. I really want to go.

Well, I suppose I should go for now. Thanks again for all of the responses I have been given! I hope everyone is having a good week. God Bless!